Splatters of mud from the trenches of the gender wars

On anger, privilege and power

It’s the second time in a few days that I’ve had to open a blog like this, but I will leave it to (many, many) others to explain why Julie Burchill’s Observer column today is so offensive and hurtful to trans people. Just to be clear on where I stand, I think it is the most vile, hate-filled, bigoted rant I have ever read in either Guardian or Observer. It is as if she made a simple list of all the most offensive things one could say about trans people and wove them into a clumsy cowpat of prose. But the trans community are more than capable of speaking for themselves on that, so I would like to focus on something else.

Of the issues raised by Suzanne Moore’s Twitter meltdown last week, one that has I think been overlooked is the privilege of the commentariat. I touched on this last week, but events since have added whole new layers of significance. One of the odder remarks in Moore’s Guardian piece was when she criticised the feminist jargon of intersectionality, saying

“Intersectionality is good in theory, though in practice, it means that no one can speak for anyone else.”

In Burchill’s piece, she (presumably quite deliberately) begins by describing a lunch with Moore where they ate lobster and drank Bollinger champagne, before quickly reminding us that both women (along with Julie Bindel) are from working class backgrounds.

“She, the other JB and I are part of the minority of women of working-class origin to make it in what used to be called Fleet Street and I think this partly contributes to the stand-off with the trannies. (I know that’s a wrong word, but having recently discovered that their lot describe born women as ‘Cis’ – sounds like syph, cyst, cistern; all nasty stuff – they’re lucky I’m not calling them shemales. Or shims.) We know that everything we have we got for ourselves. We have no family money, no safety net. And we are damned if we are going to be accused of being privileged by a bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs.”

Leaving aside the transphobic hate-speech, I think this is a fascinating glimpse into what Burchill (and presumably her friends) believe is meant by both class and privilege. She is saying class is something one is born into and that it is immutable. She believes the precise same of gender, conveniently enough. In recalling the lobster and champagne story, Burchill was, I think, explicitly telling us that she was born working class, and whatever expensive meals she might have eaten, she will die working class. By implication, if you’re born a man or a woman, you will stay that way whether you like it or not.

I think privilege is a useful concept in understanding ourselves in relation to the world, how we perceive and interpret people and situations around us. I do not doubt that the ways in which Burchill, Moore and Bindel see the world are heavily informed by their upbringing as working class women. However to really understand the world in relation to ourselves (which is not quite the same thing) we need to look not at privilege, but at power. It is not privilege which controls people, constrains people, oppresses people and discriminates against people, but power. A straight white male may have privileges, but he does not necessarily have power (although for obvious reasons they often coincide). Your boss has power, political and religious leaders have power, your abusive partner has power, and their power is not necessarily lessened by their ethnicity, gender or sexuality. A working class entrepreneur turned billionaire corporate boss may not have been born into privilege, but it would be ridiculous to say that he (or theoretically she) does not have immense power. When Julie Burchill says she is not privileged it is no less ridiculous then when Lord Alan Sugar says much the same.

Whether they have attained their position through talent and hard work or old school ties and nepotism, star newspaper columnists wield enormous power. They can not only help to shape news agendas and public discourse. They have the power to brighten the day or ruin the week of millions of readers. More specifically, they can choose to wield that power to incite or (more commonly) validate the hatred and bigotry of others, which can have a direct influence on the safety and quality of life of their targets.

It’s almost got lost amid the nonsense, but the at heart of this dispute over the past six days has been the allegation that there is a “powerful lobby” of trans activists who control the debate, stifle freedom of speech and bully opponents into silence. Quite obviously, if the lobby were that powerful neither Burchill’s article nor Moore’s before it would ever have been published and the types of horrors uncovered by the #TransDocFail hashtag would be history.

To the best of my knowledge, trans activists have no powerful allies in the establishment or politics. They have no financial backing to speak of. They have little influence over cultural norms and discourse, or the setting of the political and social agenda. Just about the only weapon they have at their disposal is anger. The anger directed by (some) activists towards Moore, Burchill and Bindel comes from a position of virtual powerlessness. Sure, the outbursts of a few dozen angry activists can ruin a newspaper columnist’s day, perhaps make them feel picked upon and sorry for themselves and earn the tut-tutting sympathy of their friends. The anger of a newspaper columnist, on the other hand, can poison the air for millions.

While I acknowledge and unequivocally condemn nasty trolling, bigoted hatred and needless personal abuse, I have never had much sympathy for journalists at any level who complain about the negative feedback and genuine anger they encounter online. I’m not just talking about the Three Sisters of transphobic feminism here, Robert Fisk was talking just as much nonsense the other day and similar issues come up whenever powerful journalists discuss civility in discourse. It is as if they want all politics to be conducted by the rules of a debate at the Oxford Union, which is entirely alien to a large proportion of the population and always has been. There is hypocrisy in it too – I rarely see complaints about the compliments, fawning praise and adulation that also come with interactive media. It’s not just that the negative is the price to be paid for the positive, it is that it is an essential counterbalance.

Few things make us humans more angry than someone co-opting our voices, speaking for us without our blessing or consent. Anger is the weapon of the weak against the strong, the powerless against the powerful. That doesn’t always make it correct or justified (BNP, EDL or Hizb Ut Tahrir activists are angrier than anyone) but it makes it explicable. People get angry with journalists, and columnists in particular, because of our power, not our privilege. The irony, if you haven’t noticed, is that if we go back a week to the first article by Suzanne Moore that kicked this off, she made almost the precise same point. Forgive me for ending on a cliché, but they do say to be careful what you wish for.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

84 Responses

It amuses and amazes me in equal measure when people with national newspaper columns talk about being silenced – by men, by transexuals, by Tories, by anyone. And nine times out of ten, what they seem to mean is this: people are disagreeing with me. People are disagreeing me vocally. People are disagreeing with me, perhaps, in a way I don’t like.

Intersectionality is a massively useful concept in its recognition that identity groups (men, Christians, lesbians, punks, plebs) are not monoliths, and everyone’s position in society is unique. If you have a national newspaper column, you are powerful, regardless of how powerless the average member of the group you identify with is.

If you choose to use that power base to pick on people, you can expect to get short shrift from your audience. I think the right to reply we (that is, those of use without national newspaper columns) have gained in the past couple of decades is a wonderful, precious thing. That a few anointed bigots have been pissed off by it in the past week only underlines its value.

More importantly…those people *may* be trying to “silence” them, but not the whole of them…just the bat-shit insane style prejudism that they simply shouldn’t be eschewing as a champion of equality. I doubt any one of the people that has ripped in to Burchill or Moore this week wouldn’t want to hear from them again if they simply accepted they were wrong, said sorry, and promised not to be such dicks about that subject ever again.

So the issue is that (Burchill at least) clearly just is that prejudiced and really doesn’t see that she’s wrong or that there’s a problem with it. And that is what is so depressing.

I came to all this late. I read Moore’s piece before scanning, as merely an interested outsider, the comments upon it. My opinion was that their was more heat than light in evidence. Now I come to this and I read that Julie Burchill has waded into the fray. I’ve read the Burchill column and I have to say it is a masterpiece of direct hits, pushing all the buttons she can find, poking her chosen targets in all the right place. She is an expert sniper in action. And, to be honest, my outsider’s opinion (for I am not one of these middle-class, educated folk who are using academic buzz words like “intersectionality” as if they were everyday speech) is that these buttons need pressing. It is clear, to me at least, that people who can raise a mob to attack someone for writing an honest piece, sustaining a campaign of verbal attacks on social media, need to be brought back down to earth.

Of course, columnists must bear the brunt of reaction to what they write. I’m sure both Moore and Burchill know that. But I just don’t agree that self-appointed groups can tell the rest of us what to say, delineate terms and set the agenda. They, like the rest of us, are mere participants in a greater conversation. Places like The Guardian’s Comment is Free have always been a bunfight. I think they always will be. But let’s all calm down and put away our egos. People choose to be offended. Let’s never forget that. The cult of victimhood is strong with some. I must take offence at every possible opportunity is their mantra. It gets old real quick. Those who are “outraged” should remember that probably 95% of the British public have never heard of Suzanne Moore, Julie Burchill, “intersectionality” or “trans” anything – bar the usual sniggers. In short, what an insular argument.

I wonder, then, why both Moore, and now Burchill, made the point that there are bigger fish to fry?

Because they trolled the people that they wanted to, and would now like to just move on? :)

It’s no good to say people choose to be outraged, because that’s only half the story. Also people choose to take these kinds of outbursts as vindication of their own views, and own hatreds and prejudices. We can’t have things both ways. If we want people to not use popular writings as some kind of part of their own manifesto of ignorance and oppression, then we have to also accept that it’s not fair to cause people to find offence so easily.

Where the “line” sits on personal responsibility will change article to article, and ultimately it’s never going to be all one persons fault or another, but let’s not pretend that you’re not responsible for what happens after you’ve hit submit, only those that have formed an opinion different to your own.

Burchill is certainly getting out the AR-15 and taking aim. Moore was certainly goaded into it. This directly leads to Burchill today. Be careful what you wish for indeed. No group has the right to insist that we use their terms. It take two to tango.

Hi Sara. My problem with this the “bigger fish to fry” is that if we want to build a united struggle for economic and social justice, I don’t think it helps to tell minorities that their specific problems are irrelevant and that they’re not welcome in our united movement. Kind of defeats the point, no?

Sara, do you know how many transwomen are murdered every year? Transmen?Do you realize how very little validation is needed–the kind provided by Burchill’s hate speech–to incite that violence? I’m absolutely spellbound by your defence of this screed as an “honest piece,” and that you think of this as a “tiny issue.” What awful times we live in.

Do you know how many murderers of transexuals have ever cited Suzanne Moore or Julie Burchill as the direct or indirect cause for their crimes? I’m going to take a guess and say zero. Not that it’s relevant. We wouldn’t accept the “I read so and so” argument for any other murder. We would blame the murderer. So why is that a reasonable argument now? It isn’t.

The justifications for bile and mob hate get stranger and stranger. At least I can see that Moore was goaded and Burchill unloaded to protect her friend.

Burchill was slaughtered below the line. Absolutely slaughtered, her views do not strike a chord, & the Obs has brought itself into disrepute.

But frankly I enjoyed dipping in to the comments on Burchill’s article as there was so much support being expressed for the trans community. It was great, although not what Burchill aimed for presumably. She stated she was a working class woman like some kind of medal & hunners of other working class women jumped in & said she was talking shite.

I agree, The really good thing to come out of today is that I doubt there has ever been such a concentrated and genuine outpouring of support and sympathy for trans people anywhere in British media.

There was a brilliant blog by Alex Blandford a few days ago which I’d urge everyone to read..

In the intro he talks about this being a paradigm shift in British feminism leaving the old guard looking bewildered and lost. I thought it was a bit hyperbolic at the time, but it really felt true today.

If I may just reply before bed may I say that I found what Burchill actually wrote to be the uplifting thing – and the fact the the Observer had the moral fibre to print it knowing what would follow. tHis is free speech at it’s finest. It’s also the thing that allowed you to feel so great about what was said below, through which I trawled for 45 minutes.

You state there was “so much support” being stated for the Trans community below the line but, come on, how many people are we talking? At most a few hundred taking repeat commenters into account. Is this a mass protest movement or the same few old outraged voices?

The best comment on this kind of affair I have read lately is the piece in tomorrow’s Guardian, already online, from Charlie Brooker. He neatly pricks the pomposity of internet outrage that has long since become hackneyed, passe and utterly utterly boring. He writes:

“Of course, today, simply “taking offence” isn’t enough. Instead, you have to immediately run around honking on about how offended you are, as though this is some kind of devastating eureka moment that absolutely must be shared with the rest of humankind. It isn’t. Go home. ”

AMEN TO THAT. There really are bigger fish to fry. Some, however, are going to be so narcissistically wrapped up in their own identity politics that they will spite the world to save their own face.

I have to say (with a full sense of irony) how offensive your comment is here. To these people there are no bigger fish to fry than their own situation of injustice and prejudice. It’s entirely horrible of anyone, like yourself here, to belittle that.

Just as the point of parliaments existing (though they too fail at it) is to make sure that the minorities get a voice against the tyranny of the majority, it shouldn’t be the place of movements to just ignore the smaller voices among their herd.

There is a COMPLETE difference between what Brooker is writing, IMO, which is about seeking to find offence in any little thing, and what has happened here which is where a person has specifically set out to cause offence.

Those angered *could* just walk away, sure…but then what does the article then sound like except for a ringing endorsement by society that the treatment of their issues is something that shouldn’t even remotely be considered ahead of the desire to get some cheap laughs from a throw-away newspaper column?

If I’m not allowed to have a response to journalism I don’t see the point of it existing… If I can’t think it’s inaccurate, or unfair & say so… If I can’t agree with it &, say, go on an anti-war march… Then it should go home. I don’t need to hear anything I’m not allowed to have a reaction to.

So are you saying that the rights of the trans community are expendable ? That because there’re bigger fish to fry they should basically take on the chin whatever crap is thrown at them ?

Suzanne Moore could have easily prevented this latest shitstorm from happening if only she’d apologized for any offence caused by her reference to the bodies of brazilian transexuals. And both Julie Burchill and Julie Bindel have form when it comes to making transphobic comments.These three women wield a certain amount of power as journalists and to incite prejudice against an already vulnerable minority group is totally unacceptable and there needs to be some comeback on them.

Freedom of speech is something precious that we should all fight to preserve.But those in the media with power and influence like Moore,Bindel and Burchill also have a responsibility not to inflame prejudices that they must know exist.Legitimate criticism of individuals within the trans community is one thing but an attack on the whole community is a totally different ball game. So the trans community have every right to feel offended and threatened by what’s happened and they have every right to express that.And rather than arrogantly dismissing their feelings by stating that there’re bigger fish to fry Burchill et al really need to make amends.

Ally, as ever you are a paragon of charity. I hope you’re right about what went wrong in the heads of Moore and Burchill that they could _seriously_ think of themselves as would-be victims of a ‘gaggle’ of… (I won’t repeat the words they use). If a few people asking you to apologise on Twitter is the kind of ‘bullying’ you need to suffer to have a cushy number as an armchair sociologist, sign me up. I hope you’re right that it is simply blindness to their own power.

I’d like to put forward my own theory if I may, less charitable though it may be. What I see is this: both Moore and Burchill thought of their antagonists _as men_ (hence the bizarre and offensive reduction to ‘chicks with dicks’). They judged the public mood by what they could get away with when talking to men. They felt they could play the old “Men are trying to silence women” card if they needed to and it would win the day. They felt they could be gratuitously insulting because men are expected to take it on the chin, and not ‘choose to be offended’ by it. (Sara Bella’s comment above is a perfect illustration of this attitude, I thought.)

What they failed to understand is that many (most?) people don’t view trans women as men; they view them as women. Thus, it became a hell of a lot easier for everyone to see who the real bullies were.

Anyway, it’s just a theory. But if something like this were true, then this whole sorry debacle would be an extremely pertinent illustration of the difference in terms of the societal expectations of the sort of abuse we deem acceptable to hurl at men as opposed to women.

Is that what you think happened Jamie, a few people “asked Suzanna Moore to apologise”? You make those whom she received messages from sound like the Christian sewing circle. I don’t know if you have ever been on the receiving end of any kind of social media mob but I can imagine it doesn’t feel pleasant. As you are one calling for understanding for the feelings of others I would hope you can put yourself in her shoes too. From what I have seen it was certainly not just nice people asking for a polite apology. Here original article contained, at worst, an unfortunate reference. She didn’t set out to be offensive and was then goaded and harried until she snapped. If you chase a dog it may just turn round and bite you on the nose.

I find myself in a strange position. Until this I had never felt the slightest urge to stand up for Moore, much less so Burchill or even Bindel. It has to be said that they are fairly low grade targets if you are looking to bring someone down. As I said in response to someone above, on a general scale this is the world’s most insular and insignificant argument going on here as some writers for a paper with a small circulation come under attack from a minority of people from a minority community. (And by minority I mean very small.) If Moore and/or Burchill were to now come out and apologise would the world have been put to rights? No, tiny group would still feel as if the world was against them and Moore and Burchill wouldn’t have changed their views one bit.

I think there are silent voices in this debate. It isn’t 3 radfems, as you put it. And it isn’t radical people from the Trans community on the other. It is the mass of the nation. The Right are silent because they are laughing their heads off. The mass of unpoliticised people are silent because they’ve never heard of Moore and Burchill and things Trans never interfere in their life experience. For them a transexual is a ladyboy reference in a joke by Alan Partridge or the character Barbara from The League of Gentlemen. So I don’t agree when you say:

“What they failed to understand is that many (most?) people don’t view trans women as men; they view them as women. ”

In fact, you couldn’t be more wrong. Moore and Burchill were on the side of the general public in their unguarded references. The general parlance is “chicks with dicks”. The majority view is “men trying to be women”. I say that not to be offensive. I say it because that is the majority view. I say it because it perfectly highlights the real divide here between an educated, elitist bunch who use buzz words and wish to define the language of others and the unreflective, uninterested crowd who would never stop to think twice about “transexual issues” because they would never ever meet one or be affected by those issues. You are guilty of thinking that a minority of educated Guardian readers are the general public. They aren’t. Those millions of Mail and Sun readers are more representative of the general public, even if only in terms of sheer numbers. They might not be able to say, in polite terms, what a transexual is. But they would know what a “chick with a dick” is.

It is hard to say “move on, nothing to see here” because I will be accused of ignoring the feelings of others. But I suppose I am ignoring them if I’m honest. The offence some chose to take at Moore’s original words (all together are responsible for everything that has followed, both sides could have chosen to stop digging) was out of all proportion to what was said. But to most people this isn’t even on the radar. Most people care about the money in their pocket, if they will have a job to go to tomorrow, if, when they get sick, their hospital will still be there offering free care. This is the ultimate side issue for all except a very tiny nub of amateur politicos. It’s a clash of the egos. And it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. However this plays out, nothing will have advanced or even changed. And nobody will have noticed. It’s hard to see that when you are as politically engaged as the combatants here (and I’m not one of them) but it really is true. I think of it as like a fight between two bullies in the playground. Sometimes there is just a kind of stalemate in which no one wins and they just stop and go their separate ways.

It’s quite rich really – a trio of RadFems who have spent years writing offensive columns about all sorts of ‘deviants’ they disapprove of, get upset when they get a taste of their own medicine. Often the columns of, especially Burchill and Bindel, are like a 14 years olds diary entry, bitching about all the things they hate. How do they pass for journalism?

It’s fine for the national press to put the radfem view but they should allow the targets of their anger a response. All the sex workers, transexuals, strippers, porn actresses, models etc that they have regularly maligned and patronised should be allowed to respond.

Haters in shock at response to their hatred – meh! JB – is this a bad joke?!

“at heart of this dispute over the past six days has been the allegation that there is a “powerful lobby” of trans activists who control the debate, stifle freedom of speech and bully opponents into silence.”

I thought Burchill’s article was terrible. That said, what you describe above is EXACTLY what was happening on Twitter – a mob of enraged people calling for Burchill to be prosecuted for “hate speech” and for her and the Observer’s editor to be sacked. What else is that but a concerted effort to “control the debate, stifle freedom of speech and bully opponents into silence”?

There is a breadth of difference a mile wide between people disliking something someone has said and thinking they shouldn’t be allowed to say it, and being vocally (vociferously so) outraged that a national paper, and a prominent figure, feels it OK to go against their own editorial guidelines in order to publish a piece that exists solely to denigrate from a platform with (almost) unrivaled visibility, should not be allowed to take such a position.

They are of course wrong in their stance that it’s ok to get someone fired for simply writing something completely awful, but the expression of that sentiment is not only acceptable but necessary to counter the negative effects that such an article will have in providing transphobic people with added verve and a totem to point to.

TBH I find the idea of trying to compare the voices of the angry oppressed to bullies (who actually have to hold some position of power, either physically, psychologically, or in status) quite nasty. I don’t even want to think how often in the past the uncomfortable vocalisation by those who are oppressed has tried to be passed off as simply being “a small minority” or “bullies trying to change our culture” or, could I even compare… “terrorists”? Their actions may not be ideal, but then their situation is anything but ideal either.

It’s hilarious, in a sad way, to see Burchill and Moore’s actions apologised for because “like a dog being attacked it will turn and bite” yet not afford the constantly prejudiced against, attacked, ridiculed and assaulted community that finally HAS turned around to bite back the same understanding.

So basically Lee, if I may summarise your response, you think that their cries for a sacking are wrong and their actions are not “ideal” but they should be allowed to do it anyway?

That looks like a poorly disguised apology for mob behaviour to me. And, as we know, there is no more bitter fight than between those in the same camp. If this had been in the Mail or Sun it would have been so much water under the bridge.

“So basically Lee, if I may summarise your response, you think that their cries for a sacking are wrong and their actions are not “ideal” but they should be allowed to do it anyway?”

No, I’m afraid that isn’t my stance. I think that the *result* of sacking would be wrong. A newspaper columnist shouldn’t lose their job for what is (as far as I’m aware) a single gross contravention of their editorial code. I believe in workplace processes to try and reform professional behaviour rather than create martyrs, for example.

I think their calls for sacking are fine, those that have clearly gone over the line in to harassment are wrong, but that doesn’t stop the show of disapproval with the author from being necessary, however it is vocalised within the boundaries of non-harassment.

“If this had been in the Mail or Sun it would have been so much water under the bridge.”

It would not have, it’d possibly have been even larger. Replace Burchill with a male right-wing writer and tell me that the response of outrage wouldn’t have been larger because of those who are now free to join in because it’s either a right-wing attack or because it’s not their champion that will cause conflicted feelings of loyalty.

You’re telling me that these are “the voices of the angry oppressed” but in fact quite a few calling for sackings and prosecution are themselves powerful media figures and at least one is an MP. I do not believe that trans people ARE uniformly weak and oppressed, and many of their supporters certainly are not.

Of course there will be opportunists that jump in, especially those from opposing ideologies that are keen to exploit and expose hypocrisy in others as would be done to them. There will also be those drawn in from the wider world who believe in equality and freedom from oppression. Comment on someone’s actions is never bullying, however hard it is for someone to hear, and however ridiculous the calls. It seems that we find it all too easy to resort to shouting “bully” when it is our own idols being attacked, but ignoring how we talk to others when they are our “enemies”.

I don’t think I ever said trans people were uniformly weak, by the way…why did you have to insert that kind of language?

I inserted that kind of language because you attempted to magic away the censorious and bullying nature of myriad Twitterati calls to prosecute and sack people as “the voices of the angry oppressed”. If you don’t like the extension of that into a presumption that you consider trans people uniformly weak, then don’t trigger it by launching down that road yourself. You can’t have it both ways and constitute these voices as those of oppressed trans people when it suits you then get twitchy with me for using the term “weak”.

“Comment on someone’s actions is never bullying, however hard it is for someone to hear, and however ridiculous the calls.”

I’d also add Harriet that comment on someone’s actions is ALWAYS bullying when carried out deliberately, fervently and in a co-ordinated way by a self-selected group, no matter how “powerless” you may perceive them to be.

I don’t see how, in any world, people expressing their anger…defined as bullying or not…makes them automatically weak? Being oppressed doesn’t mean weak, it means just means they’re oppressed. There is tremendous strength in speaking out against those who look to normalise and justify the type of language that perpetuates negative actions against you, in fact.

That you see it otherwise says a lot about how you perceive people perhaps.

I would love to see people here try to apply the bullying label to a bunch of nerdy kids that one day decide to corner someone who has been stealing their lunches for years and collectively, angrily, tell that bully to fuck off.

Moore and Burchill have the best PR officer going in you Lee. To hear you talk they are twin colossai that bestride the UK commentariat. A quick survey of my work (15 people) yielded 2 who had heard of Burchill and none who had heard of Moore.

The teacup might look huge if you’re in it but from the outside it’s just a teacup…with a storm in it.

Which is how men will view the feminist debate, for example. It’s very easy to find the person next up the line in status and power who doesn’t want to acknowledge a legitimate concern of a minority. It’s interesting to watch you draw arbitrary lines that suit your own agenda.

Nice side-stepping of my point by the way, and for the third time belittling the actual feelings and experiences of those that are aggrieved here. Way to go there, if I say any empathy courses around I’ll let you know about them.

It’s a bit hard to claim you are fighting the power if the people you are fighting are basically obscure. Let’s call it misdirected anger.

Last time I looked everybody in a debate drew lines to suit their own agenda. Debate is entirely about drawing the lines to suit your argument. Hence why the Trans community likes to define it’s own terms and the mass of the population go WTF?

I think you’ve been reading too many gender studies textbooks…which is how the mass of the population would see this whole debate…if they knew it existed.

By the way, it’s not my job to “empathise” (buzzword) with any and all people here. It’s my job to put my point of view. I haven’t noticed you empathising with what it must feel like to suddenly receive a few thousand angry responses, something that Moore at least did not expect (or deserve) from her original article.

The thing about empathy is that there is always someone you don’t have it for. Yes Lee, even you.

““Intersectionality is good in theory, though in practice, it means that no one can speak for anyone else.”

This is both stupid – what on earth is wrong with not presuming to speak for other people and define their problems, even over their objections – and also quite, quite dishonest of Burchill. Female feminists have for decades been scathing in the denunciations of men who presume to do the same with respect to women. But I can see how Burchill would see the threat in this – it would mena she and other femihnsts would have to stop presuming to speak about gay men’s issues and the issues of racial minorities, and perhaps even have to stop appropriating them to their own rhetorical ends.

“By implication, if you’re born a man or a woman, you will stay that way whether you like it or not.”

This is a key element of their inability to understand the issue. A trans person is born anatomically one sex but neurologically the other. it’s just false to arbitrarily mis-assign the kid’s sex based on everyone else’s convenience.

And it is peasant Fundametalist ignorance to ignore the science on this, the way transphobes like Burchill do..

I wholeheartedly agree with your point about moving class, and changing privileges.

I was born rural poor. I was eligible for free school meals, but we didn’t take them because of the stigma. I did very well in some exams, got into an elite university (with a bursary from that university), then did a funded PhD, and now I have a well paying professional job. I am comfortably upper middle class.

I am no-longer rural poor, I am a rich educated white male. My world view is totally different to the one that I was brought up in. I “lawyer up” when I have a problem involving money, I go to the police when I am a victim of crime, My university friends are also useful business contacts, I’ve attempted to raise serious start-up capital, FFS I own black tie!

The fact that Julie Burchill is unaware that her experience of being poor was unusual and that her views have changed is dangerous. Both Julie and I are more aware of the issues facing marginalised groups than a typical rich kid, but we are not members of marginalised groups. If we want to represent these groups, then we have to recognise our own privilege and listen.

An interesting comment Mike. Do please re-read Burchill’s article. She shows utter contempt for education and incapable of doing an extremely basic bit of research into the aetilogy of “Cis”:

It is ironic that she insists that she is “working class” when she produces a lazy, irrational and criminal piece of writing like that. Burchill produces regular rants against educated people.

What on earth does “working class” mean in this context? she wears her ignorance like a badge of honour. I depise her attitude and I dont think she would like you.

It was illegal to publish that article:

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
defines a criminal offence of intentional harassment, which covers all forms, including sexual harassment. A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he/she
uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour; or
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

True story for Sara. One of my pals has a son who works for a Council department, a fairly male working class environment & he told us this. A middle aged man who has worked there man & boy, is, I think the phrase is transitioning, from male to female. So they got them all into the yard to have a meeting with HR & the union rep to explain what was happening & to ask the guys to show some respect. They were all a bit stunned & at the end the HR guru asked if anyone had any questions. A joker at the back put his hand up & said when she is finished would it be OK if I asked her out.

To the best of my knowledge that employee has been given all the support required & colleagues are in fact very protective. So I would not assume that the mass of the population just thinks WTF. When faced with a reality many of us can deal with it.

Thank you Kristine. I think a good to come put of this is Roz Kaveney’s piece. Clearly Moore was tactless and Julie Burchill was as obnoxious as she has always been. Possibly thinking to re-kindle her enfant terrible persona as many any ageing punk star does. In amongst all this is a load of tosh about class gender and so on. I particularly resent the characterisation of vast numbers of people as “rude mechanicals” incapable of respectful debate.
Perhaps underneath the storm is disdain for people who existence calls into question some central tenets of a favoured ideology. I suppose it would be annoying to have solid evidence that things are a whole lot more complicated than you’d like to think.

[NOTE FROM ALLY FOGG: Kate’s comment included a personal email exchange with Julie Bindel. Without taking any stance on the rights or wrongs here, I don’t agree with publishing private emails without permission. I’ve left up the links if people want to follow the story elsewhere. Sorry Kate. AF]

Bindel is a disgusting. stupid, arrogant cowardly bully.

I sent Bindel my CID witness statement regarding the serious offences that have been committed against me as a child. Please read it and comment.

Great comment Nigel. However, Moore went far beyond being tactless. “Brazillian transsexual” is an offensive stereotype and instead of allowing people to explain why it is offensive she engaged in outrageous rants about men having having their dicks cut off so they can become better feminists than her.

Moore could simply made a reference to Jordan, Playboy models, porn stars, Barbie dolls …Instead she chose to express her disgusting prejudices. The behaviour of Caitlin Moran was equally disgusting and ignorant.

As for aging punks, an old Radleian friend of mine came round some time ago when I was playing the Dead Kennedys and laughed, “you are still a punk, Kate!”

Yesterday, I was dancing around to Anarchy in the UK and wondering what the hell has gone wrong.

I wrote to Ian Beales of the PCC in 2004 and was asked to advise on the coverage of these issues in the press.

Typically, Christine Burns illegally published the letter which may be read on pp38-40 of this appalling document:

I am not favourably impressed with professional transexuals like her, Kaveney and the comic Jane Fae. They don’t represent me and I take extreme exception to the rubbish about the “trans community” that they spout.

More useful would be the Use of Pleasure and Care of Self, By Michel. And Death and Deliverence by Michael Burleigh to examine the power to make good people condone the death of their children for a greater “good”. From Fabian Utopias to sterilisation and gas.

I’m currently reading Gail Dines’ book Pornland (don’t tell QRG) and the following paragraph (p65) struck me as very relevant:

The process of dehumanizing a group as a way to legitimize and justify cruelty against its individual members is not something that porn producers invented. It has been a tried and trusted method adopted by many oppressors; the Nazi propaganda machine effectively turned Jews into “kikes”, racists defined African Americans as “niggers” rather than humans, and homophobes have an almost limitless terms for gays and lesbians that stip them of their humanity. Once the humanness of these individuals is collectively rendered invisible by their membership in a socially denigrated group, then it is that much easier to commit acts of violence against them.

Her context is the dehumanizing of female porn stars in order to render the portrayal of abuse and violence in gonzo porn acceptable to the viewer. But… it seems very applicable here. What started out as a casual jibe (Suzanne Moore), quickly moved on to direct insults (Moore again), and then out-and-out hate speech (Julie Birchall – note the “almost limitless terms” above). The process was one of dehumanizing trans people, thus creating – or rather, perpetuating – a culture where “it is that much easier to commit acts of violence against them.”

In reply Roz Kaveney had this to say: “What I would ask Moore and Burchill is this: do you think that what you’ve written makes it more or less likely that an elderly trans woman living on a housing estate will get jostled on the stairs by her neighbours? Or that a teen trans man will be punched in the street? It’s not anger-fuelled tweets, but that provocation, done with malice by people who should know better, that is the real bullying.”

Sorry Jonathan but this is pretentious at best and academically-worded bullshit (yes, bullshit) at worst. Do you imagine that anyone has set out since last week, or last Sunday, with the words of Moore or Burchill ringing in their ears looking to violently oppress or attack a transsexual? The very idea is completely laughable. I know that it seems you have read a book but reading a book doesn’t make what it says so. Ask yourself who is even taking part in this debate or knows about it. It is a few politically-engaged people. Most people, believe it or not, do not even know this debate is taking place. But now you’ve read a book you wish to arm every miscreant who would abuse a transsexual with the “bigotry” or Burchill and Moore? Pardon me if I find that completely laughable. That kind of chat may fly amongst a trans-friendly discussion group who all sagely nod in agreement but out here in the real world it is batshit crazy.

Jonathan, I think that what is written in The Observer (and then expunged) or muttered on a relatively obscure account on Twitter (which then gets deleted) has a negligible effect on anything. Has this spat been reported in any other national newspaper (genuine question)? I’ve referred to this above as a storm in a teacup and I truly believe it is. This is not a constant stream of Nuremburg rallies calling for violence against transexuals but a relatively minor spat between feminists and other identity politicos. That you feel included in that conversation makes it important to you and thus you feel any sting it generates all the more keenly. But, for the love of god, open your eyes and look a bit wider than that. It is all very well ramping up the rhetoric but something tells me that’s what caused the problem in the first place.

Go down the pub or the football match and talk about “a culture of dehumanizing prejudice” and see the funny looks you get. And that is another point. This debate is being fuelled by a culture of academic snobbery. No wonder Burchill mentioned the working class because you will never communicate with that whilst you talk like a gender studies text book. Assuming you want to communicate at all, that is.

Sorry Jonathan but this is pretentious at best and academically-worded bullshit (yes, bullshit) at worst.
jonathan is right, the process of dehumanisation is well researched, well understood (even common sensically) .

‘The process was one of dehumanizing trans people, thus creating – or rather, perpetuating – a culture where “it is that much easier to commit acts of violence against them.”’

jonathan’s point is clear and sound.
why do you have an emotional resistance to it

Are you a svengali James? Can you “feel my vibes” through the internet ether? Surely if this debate has taught us anything it is that people speak for themselves and others should not presume to do so.

But, to answer you directly, I don’t have a resistance to it – emotional or otherwise. Because I’m completely ignoring it. Irrelevancies should be ignored. It’s how every one of us gets through a day – by choosing the important things and ignoring the not so important things.

That I have taken a perverse and temporary affection to one blog for 48 hours does not mean it’s the centre of my world. Normally, the likes of Moore, Burchill and, to be honest, the transexual community would pass me by completely unnoticed.

Sorry Sarah Bella, but your name is marvelously ironic for someone with your ugly attitude. Your allegation that Jonathan’s comment is “batshit crazy” is what one calls psychological “projection” but you would have do some reading to understand the concept.

Calling someone a “transsexual” is part of a constant narrative of dehumanisation which has real consequences for real people.

I was violently assaulted in the local pub last year by a thug who began by shouting disgusting slurs like those used by Moore, Burchill etc al. F *** tranny ..F…ing freak.

We told the him the Screws had gone and he shouted “it will be be back”! before attacking me.

The land lady got him down in a most impressive manner and I hit him breaking his nose. He broke several of her ribs. The police told her that she shouldn’t have tried to help me.

They suggested to me that he might want bring charges against me for defending myself.

This was the second time Steve assaulted me in that pub using just the same language but under different management.

A month or two ago I was found by the police unconscious in the road just a couple of minutes from where the criminal lives. My bag had gone and the Tilley hat I was wearing. Thank God some friends intervened and took me home. My injuries were consistent with hit on the side of the head & falling heavily. Until someone proves otherwise I will assume it was him.

A couple of weeks ago the landlord observed that the police acted as if I had brought it all on myself. A nice chap who was there on the second occasion offered to be a witness but I have had such terrible experiences with the police that I had no confidence in them.

I suggested getting him sectioned as he was shouting about going on tour in Afganistan which is a complete fantasy and he is obviously a danger to the public.

I reported the doctor who assaulted me as a 17 year old in 1982 on March 26th 2007 as a question of social responsibilty as I knew I could prove what he had done and i wanted to protect others.

The police treated me so badly on the second day when seeking protection from my parents under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 that my fiance emailed them to say that he had been very worried that I might commit suicide and had tried several times in the past because of treatment by my parents.

The officer who threatened me with arrest had no action taken against her and the report actually refers to “Sargeant White with his dismissive nature and Gestapo coat”.

He actually suggested that being sexaully assaulted at 13 was a “initiation ceremony” with a smile on his face. It took me six months to recover sufficently to make a statement.

I realise that you don’t think I matter but what about this poor girl? Kath Barnes took my complaint and is quoted in the Mail:

If you read my 2004 letter to Ian Beales of the PCC in 2004, I made precisely this point and explained that it had been pointed out on the floor of the House of Commons that the reason that we have The European Convention of Human Rights is the genocide committed by the Nazis. PP38.40:

The outrageous thing in this case is the total hypocrisy of the Graun journalists like Bindel and Nick Cohen (who would have been prime candidates for gassing) engaging in just the stereotyping and dehumanisation which made the holocaust possible.

The first group to be murdered were disabled people and people considered incurably “mentally ill” in the T4 programme.

Unfortunately, many of the psychiatrists involved in this were allowed to escape justice at the end of the war.

The real story that has been coming out over the last couple of weeks has been the horrific medical abuse to which women in my position have been subjected.

There is plenty of evidence that these conditions are developmental and it is Government policy that that is not a mental illness. It therefore makes no sense to have psychiatrists treating people

My first encounter with a “psychiatrist” was when I was a boarder at Radley College in November 1982 and was referred for expert counselling in the Warneford madhouse.

So far the Warden of Radley has not taken up my offer of trying to beat me up in public:

1) In case you hadn’t noticed we’re not actually “down the pub or the football match” here.

2) Yes, it’s been reported online (dunno about print media) in the Telegraph, the Times, the Independent, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, and probably elsewhere too.

3) As for the rest, since you don’t like my own language, I’ll refer you to Gail Dines again (p87 from the same book):

Every group that has fought for liberation understands intuitively what media theorists took decades to realize, namely, that media images play a major role in the systematic dehumanization of an oppressed group. These images never stand alone but are implicated in the broader system of messages that legitimize the ongoing oppression of a group, and their power is often derived not from shifting attitudes and behavior but from strengthening and normalizing the ideology that condones oppression.

Burchill’s article has been removed from The Observer and is now reposted in The Telegraph.

I side more with the, ‘let extremists trip themselves up with their own words’ philosophy. So feel The Observer shouldnt have deleted the rant, as it created the complete opposite of what Burchill wanted – which was great sympathy for the T community.

The work was so extreme, that I noted in the comments even some previous supporters of Burchill’s work, were able to see underneath all her badges of identity – is just a being of malevolence

So now The Telegraph can get it’s T community click through cash as well. Lovely. I’m guessing the comments won’t be as negative this time although I’m sure the clarion call is already going out. Avengers Assemble!

It’s surely a real problem, is it not, this tendency in the media to view some people as somehow being less ‘human’, just because they’re not represented by powerful pressure groups, or because their concerns are not in fashion with the main political parties. Similar examples spring to mind in terms of discrimination against men in recent months: over the past few weeks, there has been a ‘Women and Work Commission’ in Parliament, yet no corresponding inquiry into the needs of male citizens. Which makes you ask: how do those in power manage to persuade themselves that potential vulnerabilities of half the population count for nought, whereas the other half should be given particular attention in this way? And then not so long ago in the Lords, Lords Ransbotham, in a debate commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Corston Report, put forward a similarly coordinated scheme for young male offenders. Needless to say, the government representative stated that there was no money for this, let alone any political interest.
There’s something not right about this somehow: surely you should treat people in a certain way because it is morally right, not just because they have powerful interests and lobby groups working on their behalf.

This isi a real live example of the Patriarchy Hurts Men Too. The decision-makers behind all that neglect are elite men.

People do things for reasons. Whenever someone is doing something beneficent, there’s a reason, adn there is usually some self-interst involved, which to my mind is the real compassion. But sometimes that kind of charity or advocacy can become a litle predatory and a little unbalanced. So you see middle-class women advocating for other womemn and ending up almost running thier lives, or at least getting rather judgmental, you see eltie men advocating for young women….

Aiming all this attention at women and not men hurts women to, the women who love those men. Concentrating everything on young women and nothing on young men hurts moters of those men. But they are probably not in the age group that makes the elite men feel like chivalrous champions of the weak.

[…] Last weekend I was away and missed the outrage that arose in response to Julie Burchill’s article in the Observer. I was not surprised, on my return, to find that Ally Fogg had written not one, but two articles on the subject. From his more recent I take the following: […]

I don’t know why people on the Guardian website are now defending her…oh hell, yeah I do. It’s because she’s on the Left, she’s on the side of right and justice. If this had been Littlejohn or even Jeremy Clarkson people would pillory him and probably ruin his life but for some reason being a liberal female feminist seems to buy you the assumption that you couldn’t possibly have meant it, despite this being exactly on form for her.

I know it’s tempting to excuse people on our team who commit offense because it weakens the ‘side’ but realistically you have to face facts, she’s just pain hateful. The left likes to pretend that the Right has the monopoly on hate but the Left has created this illusion by deploying some very judicious ignorance of certain affiliates’ behaviour.

Personally, I think it’s because people instinctively dislike a bullying mob. If you don’t what does that say about you? If also think there is a strong strand of the public who value genuine free speech. And minorities, just like any others, have no right to not be offended or insulted. Neither do they get to decide when offence is caused – even if it is felt. This is why we don’t let victims judge crimes, for example.

That’s optimistic and I certainly hope it’s true, I’m the good old straight white cis man so I’m not really the target of mobs but my experience has been more that people like a mob just fine when they’re in it.

I’d also say that I don’t think the initial reaction was in fact fair (come on…we all know what ‘Brazilian transexual’ meant even if we won’t admit it) and I’d agree that Moore’s insulting reaction was caused more by major foot-in-mouth syndrome and by knowing what buttons to press to insult someone than by any genine ____phobia but the Burchill piece was pure calculated insult. I think quite a few people rather want to handwave this through the same as the SWP rape thing, it makes them look bad by association and rather than apologise they’d prefer it never to have happened…especially when it’s something the Left collectively adores accusing the Right of!

The thing is though, that column wasn’t a spiffing filibuster of subversive polemic, it was just an insult. I’m not sure if it was ironic (at least the first part almost certainly was) but it was calculatingly insulting. It didn’t just insult transwomen tangentially or as part of a wider point, it systematically used pretty much every permutation of insult possible and a few I actually had never heard before. I know it’d be better for solidarity if this hadn’t happened but this can’t be passed off as a joke or as some kind of tough love.

The fact it was a deliberate and calculated insult is, though, a point in it’s favour. “Are you part of some group that has a right to not be insulted?” it asks. No, you aren’t because no one is. You are right that everyone hates mobs except the ones they are in. That should cause everyone to step back and take a look in the mirror.

Instead everyone will justify themselves. I don’t know about “check your privilege”. More a case of check my offence!

[…] Last weekend I was away and missed the outrage that arose in response to Julie Burchill’s article in the Observer. I was not surprised, on my return, to find that Ally Fogg had written not one, but two articles on the subject. From his more recent I take the following: […]

“On anger, privilege and power | Heteronormative patriarchy for men” Modern
Window Treatments was indeed a superb posting, can’t help but wait to
read through even more of your articles. Time to waste a lot of time online haha.
Thanks a lot ,Cole